, Volume 160, Issue 4, pp 781–793 | Cite as

Elements of metacommunity structure of Paraguayan bats: multiple gradients require analysis of multiple ordination axes

  • Steven J. Presley
  • Christopher L. Higgins
  • Celia López-González
  • Richard D. Stevens
Community Ecology - Original Paper


Techniques to evaluate elements of metacommunity structure (EMS; coherence, species turnover and range boundary clumping) have been available for several years. Such approaches are capable of determining which idealized pattern of species distribution best describes distributions in a metacommunity. Nonetheless, this approach rarely is employed and such aspects of metacommunity structure remain poorly understood. We expanded an extant method to better investigate metacommunity structure for systems that respond to multiple environmental gradients. We used data obtained from 26 sites throughout Paraguay as a model system to demonstrate application of this methodology. Using presence–absence data for bats, we evaluated coherence, species turnover and boundary clumping to distinguish among six idealized patterns of species distribution. Analyses were conducted for all bats as well as for each of three feeding ensembles (aerial insectivores, frugivores and molossid insectivores). For each group of bats, analyses were conducted separately for primary and secondary axes of ordination as defined by reciprocal averaging. The Paraguayan bat metacommunity evinced Clementsian distributions for primary and secondary ordination axes. Patterns of species distribution for aerial insectivores were dependent on ordination axis, showing Gleasonian distributions when ordinated according to the primary axis and Clementsian distributions when ordinated according to the secondary axis. Distribution patterns for frugivores and molossid insectivores were best described as random. Analysis of metacommunities using multiple ordination axes can provide a more complete picture of environmental variables that mold patterns of species distribution. Moreover, analysis of EMS along defined gradients (e.g., latitude, elevation and depth) or based on alternative ordination techniques may complement insights based on reciprocal averaging because the fundamental questions addressed in analyses are contingent on the ordination technique that is employed.


Biogeography Boundary clumping Coherence Reciprocal averaging Species composition 


  1. Anderson S (1997) Mammals of Bolivia, taxonomy and distribution. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 231:1–652Google Scholar
  2. Bloch CP, Higgins CL, Willig MR (2007) Effects of large-scale disturbance on community structure: temporal trends in nestedness. Oikos 116:395–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns KC (2007) Network properties of an epiphyte metacommunity. J Ecol 95:1142–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chalcraft DR, Williams JW, Smith MD, Willig MR (2004) Scale dependence in the species-richness-productivity relationship: the role of species turnover. Ecology 85:2701–2708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clements FE (1916) Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Comisión Nacional de Desarrollo Regional Integrado del Chaco (1986) Memoria del Mapa Hidrogeológico de la Republica del Paraguay. Gobierno de la Republica del Paraguay, AsunciónGoogle Scholar
  7. Dolan PG (1989) Systematics of middle American mastiff bats of the genus Molossus. Special publications. The Museum, Texas Tech University, LubbockGoogle Scholar
  8. Fariña Sánchez T (1973) The climate of Paraguay. In: Gorham JR (ed) Paraguay: ecological essays. Academy of Arts and Sciences of the Americas, Miami, pp 33–38Google Scholar
  9. Fauth JE, Bernardo J, Camara M, Resetarits WJ, Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA (1996) Simplifying the jargon of community ecology: a conceptual approach. Am Nat 147:282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gauch HG (1982) Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Gauch HG, Whittaker RH, Wentworth TR (1977) A comparative study of reciprocal averaging and other ordination techniques. J Ecol 65:157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gotelli NJ (2000) Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns. Ecology 81:2606–2621Google Scholar
  13. Gotelli NJ, Graves GR (1996) Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Hausdorf B, Hennig C (2007) Null model tests of clustering of species, negative co-occurrence patterns and nestedness in meta-communities. Oikos 116:818–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes FE (1995) Status, distribution, and biogeography of the birds of Paraguay. Monogr Field Ornithol 1:1–230Google Scholar
  16. Heino J (2005) Metacommunity patterns of highly diverse stream midges: gradients, chequerboards, and nestedness, or is there only randomness? Ecol Entomol 30:590–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoagland BW, Collins SL (1997) Gradient models, gradient analysis, and hierarchical structure in plant communities. Oikos 78:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hofer U, Bersier LF, Borcard D (1999) Spatial organization of a herpetofauna on an elevational gradient revealed by null model tests. Ecology 80:976–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holyoak M, Holt RD, Leibold MA (eds) (2005) Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang C, Kim S, Altstatt A, Townshend JRG, Davis P, Song K, Tucker CJ, Rodas O, Yanosky A, Clay R, Musinsky J (2007) Rapid loss of Paraguay’s Atlantic forest and the status of protected areas—a landsat assessment. Remote Sens Environ 106:460–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hylander K, Nilsson C, Jonsson BG, Göthner T (2005) Differences in habitat quality explain nestedness in a land snail meta-community. Oikos 108:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonsson BG (2001) A null model for randomization tests of nestedness in species assemblages. Oecologia 127:309–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keel S, Gentry AH, Spinzi L (1993) Using vegetation analysis to facilitate the selection of conservation sites in eastern Paraguay. Conserv Biol 7:66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kusch J, Goedert C, Meyer M (2005) Effects of patch type and food specializations on fine spatial scale community patterns of nocturnal forest associated Lepidoptera. J Res Lepidop 38:67–77Google Scholar
  25. Leibold MA, Mikkelson GM (2002) Coherence, species turnover, and boundary clumping: elements of meta-community structure. Oikos 97:237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leibold MA, Miller TE (2004) From metapopulations to metacommunities. In: Hanski IA, Gaggiotti OE (eds) Ecology, genetics and evolution of metacommunities. Elsevier, Burlington, pp 133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leibold MA, Chase JM, Shurin JB, Downing AL (1997) Species turnover and the regulation of trophic structure. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:467–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet M, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. López-González C (1998) Systematics and zoogeography of the bats of Paraguay. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, LubbockGoogle Scholar
  30. López-González C (2004) Ecological zoogeography of the bats of Paraguay. J Biogeogr 31:33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. López-González C (2005) Murciélagos del Paraguay. Comité Español MAB y Red Ibero MAB, México DFGoogle Scholar
  32. Mares MA, Willig MR, Streilein KE, Lacher TE (1981) The mammals of northeastern Brazil: a preliminary assessment. Ann Carnegie Mus 50:81–137Google Scholar
  33. Morisita M (1971) Composition of the I-index. Res Popul Ecol 13:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Myers P (1982) Origins and affinities of the mammal fauna of Paraguay. In: Mares MA, Genoways HH (eds) Mammalian biology in south America. Special publications series, Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp 85–93Google Scholar
  35. Norberg UM, Rayner JMV (1987) Ecological morphology and flight in bats (Mammalia; Chiroptera): wing adaptations, flight performance, foraging strategy and echolocation. Philos Trans Roy Soc B 316:335–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peet RK (1974) The measurement of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pielou EC (1984) The interpretation of ecological data: a primer on classification and ordination. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  38. Redford KH, Eisenberg JF (1992) Mammals of the Neotropics: the southern Cone, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, vol 2. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  39. Ríos E, Zardini E (1989) Conservation of biological diversity in Paraguay. Conserv Biol 3:118–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simmons NB (2005) Order Chiroptera. In: Wilson DE, Reeder DM (eds) Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, vol 1, 3rd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 312–529Google Scholar
  41. Stevens RD (2004) Untangling latitudinal richness gradients at higher taxonomic levels: familial perspectives on the diversity of New World bat communities. J Biogeogr 31:665–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stevens RD, Cox SB, Strauss RE, Willig MR (2003) Patterns of functional diversity across an extensive environmental gradient: vertebrate consumers, hidden treatments and latitudinal trends. Ecol Lett 6:1099–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stevens RD, Willig MR, Gamarra de Fox I (2004) Comparative community ecology of bats in eastern Paraguay: taxonomic, ecological, and biogeographic perspectives. J Mammal 85:698–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stevens RD, López-González C, Presley SJ (2007) Geographical ecology of Paraguayan bats: spatial integration and metacommunity structure of interacting assemblages. J Anim Ecol 76:1086–1093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. R Development Core Team (2005) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  46. Veech JA, Summerville KS, Crist TO, Gering JC (2002) The additive partitioning of species diversity: recent revival of an old idea. Oikos 99:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Werner EE, Skelly DK, Relyea RA, Yurewicz KL (2007) Amphibian species richness across environmental gradients. Oikos 116:1697–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Willig MR, Presley SJ, Owen RD, López-González C (2000) Composition and structure of bat assemblages in Paraguay: a subtropical-temperate interface. J Mammal 81:386–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson DE (1973) Bat faunas: a trophic comparison. Syst Zool 22:14–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wright DH, Reeves JH (1992) On the meaning and measurement of nestedness of species assemblages. Oecologia 92:416–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wright DH, Patterson BD, Mikkelson GM, Cutler A, Atmar W (1998) A comparative analysis of nested subset patterns of species composition. Oecologia 113:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zimmerman MS (2006) Predator communities associated with brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) prey: patterns in body size. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Presley
    • 1
  • Christopher L. Higgins
    • 2
  • Celia López-González
    • 3
  • Richard D. Stevens
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesTarleton State UniversityStephenvilleUSA
  3. 3.CIIDIR, Unidad DurangoInstituto Politécnico NacionalDurangoMexico
  4. 4.Department of Biological SciencesLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations